My point was that the electorate may have not been all that fond of Richards going into the election. The election was not necessarily "hers to lose". She may have had a problem well before November and never realized it.

Your original comments seem to indicate the opposite.

Hence the analogy with Bush Sr.

B

That analogy would support the position that "misunderestimation" of the electorate and it's wishes has occurred...........not "misunderestimation" of GWB...........your premise in the entire discussion.

Unsurprisingly, on this we disagree.

B

Maybe I'm just going in circles here, or maybe not..........

If you have the sense that GWB was misunderestimated, then Ann Richards was popular and the governor's seat was hers to lose. If this was the situation, and the brilliant GWB took it away from her, you'd be correct.

But, how to you come to the conclusion that GWB was "misunderestimated" when you have conceded that the voters are not all that thrilled with Ann Richards as noted by your analogy to GB Sr. The economy was in the tank and the voters turned to Clinton to fix it. No great magic for Clinton to accomplish, although he is an excellent politician.

here's the analogy I'm reaching for:
GHWB V Clinton = Richards V GWB

GHWB & Richards were incumbents and in the beginning of the election season, both had excellent poll numbers. It was their respective elections to lose.

In Clinton's case, his party was able to convince the voters that the economy was more important than international affairs and that GHWB was out of touch with the middle-class. that wasn't the only issue, but Clinton/Morris did a masterful job of staying on target. It helped immensely that Clinton is an obviously warm and likable guy and GHWB vomited on a Prime Minister. GHWB worst moment was in that check-out line. It is so seared into voter's minds of that time that it requires no explanation.

In GWB's case, his party was able to convince voters that Richards was out of touch with middle-class Texan's fear of a failing educational system, taxes were skyrocketing in a state unused to paying many taxes, and a number of high-profile corruption scandals and abuses of power had been coming to light, all on the Democrat side. The Democrats even suggested an income tax. That suggestion was an even more wonderful opportunity for GWB than vomiting on any number of PM's would have been. Also, the Repos, being a traditional minority party, were able to avoid any blame for any of the state's screw-ups.

When folks lose elections they rarely look to see where their side failed. They always looked for some underhanded cleverness of the opponent. It's human nature.

Bot

The fundamental question is whether the Texas electorate was pleased with Richards headed into the election? If they were, then you'd definitely be correct..........GWB was "misunderestimated" at his capability of turning the electorate around.

I'm not sure of whether this was true...........or not. You've mentioned an underlying dissatisfation with the incumbent governor in previous posts. Maybe the poll numbers were incorrect? How could that be?

In general, political poll numbers do not prognosticate. They are a snapshot. A smart political analyst like Nofziger, Carville, Rove, or Clinton will use them to find their own strengths and weaknesses and those of their opponents. Then they attack their opponent in those areas where their opponent is especially weak and they have some strength. Recall that the close of GHWB's last year of his term that no Democrat with a national following was eager to run for the Presidency. They, like GHWB thought that the poll numbers reflected reality and they didn't want to be tainted by running a losing campaign.

Clinton did a brilliant job of framing GHWB as being out-of-touch with the average American while easily portraying himself as being in-touch (IMO it was easy for him because he genuinely is sympathetic to average people). GHWB just cannot match that warmth. It's a gift. So even though GHWB's numbers were in the 80's (IIRC) at the beginning, Clinton, Morris, and Carville carefully built on Clinton's strengths which (almost) without saying a word, emphasized GHWB's weakness in that regard. Also, folks were just damned tired of Republicans and so Clinton capitalized on that: Not by singing the virtues of the Democrats but by painting Repos as being out-of-touch fatcats raping the environment, starving old folks and children, and playing on the international scene (vomiting on...) when people at home were in desparate financial ruin (a minor recession, but perspective ain't important in politics). Morris & Clinton "triangulated" everything and won.

going into the Texas election, before GWB started making a public run, Richards was a she-in. People liked her wise-ass sharp tongue with which she herded TX gov and legislature. Everybody thought she was unbeatable.

Bush and Rove (IMO) used exactly the same strategy against Richards as Clinton & carville (et al) did against GHWB. They used the poll numbers to sniff-out weakness, not to intimidate themselves out of running. Richards weakness was a general perception of corruption within the Democrats. Also, GHWB was a very popular man in TX and many Texans thought he was treated very unfairly by the Clintonistas and by Americans. Bush expanded on that theme by embracing Texan patriotism.

Now that may sound funny, but if you're a Texan above a certain age, the chances are you have an insufferable pride in TX that is easily offended by the smooth-talking, patronizing jack-asses in New York and Washington. GWB wrapped himself in that flag like it was a sausage casing. Never-mind that he had an undergrad Yale diploma and a grad degree from Harvard, he was a west Texan running against the east coast liberal elites that were taking-over the Democratic Party, which in Texas is about as conservative as the Repos in say, Pennsylvania. Richards scoffed at Bush as another 'silver foot in mouth' candidate. bad move. Bush doesn't talk like he has silver anything in his mouth. he is not a smooth, fast-talking sharped-tongue pol that hobnobs with the yankee power elites. It is all about perception. Democrats out-numbered Republicans in TX. Bush won by capturing enough of the Democrat vote to match his Repo vote and Richards was history.

Remember: Democrats out-numbered Republicans in TX, including the legislature. So if the Democrats wanted him to look ineffectual or even corrupt, it was in their power. Texas has a strong legislature/weak governor system. Bush didn't fight the legislature, he worked with them on projects that he framed as good for Texas. If they're good for Texas and they get through the legislature then they are good for legislature's reelection campaigns.

Now if Bush had been as big a phony as Richards had assumed, and as stupid as his Democratic opponents labeled him, he'd have been a failure as a governor and trounced in his re-election. Remember, the Texas governor is weak compared to the legislature. Bush was re-elected by a substantial margin. he received an even larger proportion of Democrats, more Hispanic and Black voters, than he had in his first election.

And he did it all without being much of a conservative, though somehow people believe he is. He and Rove have been very successful at creating a public persona that is enduring. Remember, it has taken Democrats 6 years using every accusation, innuendo, insult, and misrepresentation they could find too reduce his approval ratings to just his base. In all of that time, Bush has advanced his agenda and the democrats have not advanced theirs.

And Democrats still think he's dumb.

Bot

Please, give credit where credit is due. The dummy Dems had little to do with bush`s falling numbers, he`s done it mostly all by himself, with a little help from his friends.

__________________
300TD W124, Two VW TDI Passat Wagons,Cummins Ram 250, Kubota Tractor
23 cylinders sipping the sweet sauce of the soy bean

All true..........and quite interesting. Never underestimate the power of Karl Rove to exploit the slightest weakness.

I also agree that the Democrats have had very little to do with reducing GWB's current approval ratings. Did they suddenly see the light and find cracks that they could exploit? The party is still in the same shambles that it was in when Clinton departed. They still have nobody to run for President.

i wouldn't expect a Democrat to say that they had a thing to do with GWB's decline. Just as they will not give him credit for what he has accomplished until he is out of office. This should help you put yourself in a Republican's shoes when he talks about Bill Clinton. I have yet to hear or read a Repo speak well of Bill without adding a few derogatory comments. They see it in their opponents but not in themselves.

Ardent Believers in the Cause are like that.

Bot

........who's a Democrat??

Ann Richards was a lesbian?

Damn, I had no idea. Thanks for the update Carl.

__________________
Current Benzes

1989 300TE "Alice"
1990 300CE "Sam Spade"
1991 300CE "Beowulf" RIP (06.1991 - 10.10.2007)
1998 E320 "Orson"
2002 C320 Wagon "Molly Fox"

Res non semper sunt quae esse videntur

My Gallery

Not in this weather!

It is clearly not a prerequisite.

The last time we elected a "genius" for president (Mr. Peanuts) he turned out to be an absolute disaster.

__________________
Current Benzes

1989 300TE "Alice"
1990 300CE "Sam Spade"
1991 300CE "Beowulf" RIP (06.1991 - 10.10.2007)
1998 E320 "Orson"
2002 C320 Wagon "Molly Fox"

Res non semper sunt quae esse videntur

My Gallery

Not in this weather!

And therein Carl, lies the principal difference between liberals and conservatives.

Liberals think that the American public is nothing but morons.

Conservatives, on the other hand, give people credit for being intelligent enough to do things like, for example, spend their own hard earned money (and not tax them to death)

__________________
Current Benzes

1989 300TE "Alice"
1990 300CE "Sam Spade"
1991 300CE "Beowulf" RIP (06.1991 - 10.10.2007)
1998 E320 "Orson"
2002 C320 Wagon "Molly Fox"

Res non semper sunt quae esse videntur

My Gallery

Not in this weather!